Abstract
The evolution of near-inertial frequency currents is often thought to be controlled by the linear, inviscid equations of motion. This hypothesis is tested by simulating the near-inertial currents described in Part I using a two-dimensional, nearly inviscid, nonlinear layer model with realistic wind forcing and stratification. The β effect and mixing of momentum below the mixed layer during the storm are crucial to realistic modeling, whereas the nonlinear terms have only a minor effect. The model fails to simulate the observations in several ways. First, the mixed layer inertial currents decay more rapidly than predicted and propagate into the thermocline with a different pattern. Second, the shear at the base of the mixed layer decays much more rapidly than predicted. Third, mesoscale eddies modulate the evolution of the inertial currents much less than predicted. These differences are much larger than the errors in the observations and cannot be removed by reasonable variations of the forcing o... Abstract The evolution of near-inertial frequency currents is often thought to be controlled by the linear, inviscid equations of motion. This hypothesis is tested by simulating the near-inertial currents described in Part I using a two-dimensional, nearly inviscid, nonlinear layer model with realistic wind forcing and stratification. The β effect and mixing of momentum below the mixed layer during the storm are crucial to realistic modeling, whereas the nonlinear terms have only a minor effect. The model fails to simulate the observations in several ways. First, the mixed layer inertial currents decay more rapidly than predicted and propagate into the thermocline with a different pattern. Second, the shear at the base of the mixed layer decays much more rapidly than predicted. Third, mesoscale eddies modulate the evolution of the inertial currents much less than predicted. These differences are much larger than the errors in the observations and cannot be removed by reasonable variations of the forcing o...